This thread is evolving to more fully show, the Pro-Dirt-Level 'consultrant' offering randomly incomplete, quickly dispensed, but not well thought out points.
Grabbing new ideas, in a reactionary defensive shift, as criticism negates earlier postures. Like I've been saying, a non-biased observer or investigator would make some notes, saying the person posting (responses) makes new claims, that don't appear earlier.
Example:
After a bulk of critics start proving that financial viability isn't there, the argument shifts. So now it's "New tech needs time". Wow, now You've agreed with your critics that currently no financial viability. That's reminiscent of an army, retreating, overrun.
'Low volume is because it's still in infancy'.
Shoulda said that, up front, before your hand was forced.
Reading the initial dialogue, I had been assuming you know the basic configuration. You don't, you don't even know / state if there is inverter and battery included. If grid tie or no grid tie (meanwhile speculating that the lack of grid-tie is, somehow GREENER, even, than 'normal' green, that, by the way, is yet to materialize to any degree of percentage.
With all the 'lalala....I don't hear youuu...' you neglected to answer the most simple question, so I'll help out, and repeat it:
Are you an agent or representative, charged with internet PR, and paid for such ?
You maintain the posture that,
"You guys keep pushing your wish for a ROOF mounted system, only."
And; "You guys keep pushing for not using any solar power."
Self-contradictory, and really just sloppy arguments. (They should refuse to pay you, for this sloppy job lobbying).
Too little hard info, with a ton of wiggle words:
'likely'
'maybe'
'i looked at picture, so...'
'maybe more (charge current), don't know'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But then very definite:
"Quite sure...judging from picture..."
"I don't see ..any intense traffic in picture"
And, I LOVE this one: (thanks)
"If XYZ is so good; it would have been there already."